First paragraph:
Parties are not monolithic structures. Following works of
Eldersveld (1964) and Katz and Mair (1995), one of the most
inspiring attempts to capture the internal life of
contemporary party organization stems from Carty (2004).
Stratarchy as a template for party organization is based on
the notion that power in a party 'cannot be located in one
single place'. It is characterized by the interplay of
organizational units that act, to varying extents,
autonomously, but in the end remain interdependent. The
central party needs the local units because voters have to
be mobilized on the ground, while the central party ensures
the overall integration of the organization (Eldersveld,
1964: 9) and advertises the party's national programme
(Carty, 2004: 5).

Last Paragraph:
This leads us to a fundamental question that is rarely
addressed in the literature: whether new and old parties
need to be treated as qualitatively different types of
structure when it comes to theorizing or explaining
organizational choice and change (for a related discussion,
see Biezen (2005))? Some conceptual reasons for keeping them
separate have just been mentioned. To solve the question
empirically, however, requires a study much broader in scope
than is probably possible in a single article. Such a study
needs to focus on differences between old and (durable) new
parties in most different contexts. It needs to categorize
these parties along the different types to assess whether
old and new parties distribute differently across them and
whether the two distributions follow the same patterns. The
typology developed here could form a systematic foundation
for such an analysis. It can help us to move from
description towards explanation revealing the logic along
which organizational characteristics combine - combinations
that might be complex but are by no means
arbitrary.